By Aubrey Subner- There is something frightening about the direction of Guyana’s political development. Beneath the familiar rhetoric of democracy, constitutional governance and national progress, a more consequential question is emerging: is the PPP/C becoming increasingly comfortable with the concentration of state power and the use of that power to contain, marginalise and neutralise threats to its political dominance?
The concern is not that an elected government exercises authority. That is its constitutional mandate. The danger arises when governing and protecting the governing party’s political interests become increasingly difficult to distinguish.
The detention of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed has brought this concern into sharp focus.
Mohamed remains incarcerated following the refusal of bail on a separate charge under the Cybercrime Act. This is notwithstanding the fact that he has secured bail in other proceedings, including his extradition case. His legal team is challenging the magistrate’s refusal, while the State has opposed his application for interim release.
The allegations against Mohamed must be tested through the judicial process. His political position cannot exempt him from accountability. But neither should his political position, or the challenge he represents, influence the application of the law.
It is astonishing that the country’s Leader of the Opposition should remain behind bars before conviction, particularly when the defence maintains that his release under appropriate conditions is warranted. Whether bail should be granted is ultimately a judicial question, but, the circumstances demand serious public scrutiny.
Pretrial detention must never become punishment before conviction. It must be justified by law, evidence and legitimate judicial considerations, not political convenience.
The implications extend beyond Mohamed personally. He occupies a constitutional position central to parliamentary democracy. His detention therefore raises legitimate questions about the functioning of the opposition and the ability of elected representatives to discharge their responsibilities.
Authoritarianism does not necessarily arrive through the dramatic abolition of elections or the formal suspension of constitutional rights. It can develop incrementally through the concentration of power, the weakening of institutional checks, the marginalisation of dissent and the gradual normalisation of exceptional state authority.
This is why Lord Tom Bingham, former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and Senior Law Lord, articulated such an important principle in his work The Rule of Law:
“All persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts.”
That principle should be central to Guyana’s democratic conversation. No government stands above the law, and no citizen should be denied its protection.
I think the real question is whether the public can have confidence that state institutions are operating independently and impartially, particularly when politically consequential individuals become the subjects of criminal proceedings.
The PPP/C government may reject allegations of political interference. But the responsibility to preserve public confidence requires more than denials. It requires transparency, consistency and demonstrable respect for institutional independence.
Equally troubling is the fragmented and seemingly muted response from sections of the wider political opposition, minority parties and civic organisations.
Where is the sustained collective demand for due process, transparency and institutional accountability?
This is not about demanding that other opposition parties endorse Mohamed, his political organisation or his conduct. It is about defending principles that must apply regardless of political affiliation.
Constitutional rights cannot be defended selectively. The protection of due process cannot depend on whether the individual facing state action is a political ally or rival.
The apparent reluctance of some political actors to respond forcefully raises questions about partisan calculations, competing ambitions and whether the opposition appreciates the broader implications of the concentration of political power.
Their silence does not establish complicity. Nevertheless, political fragmentation and institutional passivity can create an environment in which those exercising power face insufficient democratic scrutiny.
A democracy requires more than an opposition that competes for office. It requires an opposition prepared to defend democratic safeguards, even when the person benefiting from those safeguards is a political competitor.
At the heart of this controversy is a fundamental question: is the machinery of government being used exclusively to administer the state, or is there a growing perception that its exercise is also serving the interests of political preservation?
Critics may interpret the treatment of Mohamed as an effort to contain an emerging political challenge to the PPP/C’s dominance. That interpretation must be distinguished from established fact. Nevertheless, it deserves examination rather than dismissal.
The distinction between protecting the legitimate interests of government and protecting the political dominance of a governing party is fundamental.
Justice Robert H. Jackson of the United States Supreme Court, in his celebrated 1943 opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, offered a timeless warning about the limits of official power:
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics … or other matters of opinion.”
His words remind us that dissent is not an enemy of democracy. It is one of its essential protections.
The PPP/C must understand that an electoral mandate is not an unrestricted licence to exercise power without restraint. Winning government does not confer ownership of the state, its institutions or its citizens.
The Mohamed case is bigger than Mohamed himself. It is about the boundaries of governmental authority, the independence of the justice system and the willingness of political institutions to withstand the pressures of partisan politics.
The government must demonstrate that its actions are grounded in law and not influenced by political considerations. The opposition, meanwhile, must demonstrate that its commitment to democracy extends beyond its own electoral fortunes.
Guyana cannot afford a political culture in which the machinery of the state is increasingly perceived as an extension of the governing party’s survival strategy.
The ultimate test of democracy is not how a government treats those who support it, but how it treats those who challenge it.
And the ultimate test of an opposition is whether it will defend democratic principles even when doing so offers no immediate political advantage.
When the preservation of political power begins to overshadow the protection of democratic institutions, the distinction between governing and domination becomes increasingly blurred.
Power must answer to the law. The law must answer to the Constitution. And neither must become an instrument for protecting political power from democratic accountability.
